I like to think that there are lots of interpretations of each alignment that can coexist within the same game.
It's not like there are only nine different personalities in the world.
Could it be that there are lots of different ways to be CE?
the big thing i am trying to get across is that the chaotic element is unpredictable, how can you say a chaotic evil character will always be super selfish and only ever do what helps him, the very nature of chaotic means you cant put an "always" on a chaotic character.
It's written into the aliment. Chaotic is not about the act of chaos, any more then lawful is about the act of law. Lawful is organized and orderly while chaos is flexible and adaptable. The core book says this.
A CE person does not mean "I must act random" no more then a CN person means "I must flip a coin to decide what I must do" or a TN person switching sides in the mist of battle to "even things out"
So yes CE is always selfish and put themselves first always, it is why they ARE CE. It is that attitude that defines the AL just as LG is defined by trying to always do what is just and right.
If you care for anyone but yourself, your not CE, NE maybe but not CE
the thing is i look at the chaotic part of chaotic evil and what i think about is being chaotic means you will be unpredictable and even go against the evil from time to time.
Sounds more CN then evil to me... if your so unpredictable you have no set good or evil they yeah that is CN not evil, not good. But I guess CG pc need to go kill a village now and them to be "unpredictable" as well
Could it be that there are lots of different ways to be CE?
Sure but at the base when you strip everything else away much like LG base base values so does CE. And at the base is the sociopath, just like at the base of LG is the honest person that tries to always do right.
Or are we saying if your LG, always try to do the right thing then you can always must be just alike? As someone pointed out in a thread you can have two LG guys with almost the same values and they could hate each other.
So yeah you can make a dozen CE guys that act different but when you get down to it the core values is the same " the Me first sociopath". Every AL when you strip it down has a base, that is what the CE one amounts to.
So yes CE is always selfish and put themselves first always, it is why they ARE CE. It is that attitude that defines the AL just as LG is defined by trying to always do what is just and right.
If you care for anyone but yourself, your not CE, NE maybe but not CE
So, chaotic means "selfish?" Why do people get the idea that that's true at all? A chaotic person has no alignment limitation on how much they think about others. A chaotic person just does things unpredictably or spontaneously. I don't see why a chaotic evil person can't buy someone else a drink.
A LG character is both lawful and good and it means that they always try to do what's good based on their personal ethical or moral code. A LG character has a static moral compulsion and always chooses to do good actions.
A CE character is both chaotic and evil which means they spontaneously and suddenly act on evil impulses and often static moral or ethical compulsions. A CE character could claim he never kills women and then when he's cutting up a gal shrug and say "I lied" without really feeling guilty. It's because he always chooses to do evil actions.
I don't really see that I have to "always be out for myself" as a CE character as much that I see that a paladin must "always be out for everyone else." Why couldn't I play a LG, say, Rogue, who, in accordance to his code, thought of himself only but always chose to do the good thing when the opportunity arose? Why can't my chaotic good character own an orphanage or devote his time and energy to a community? Why can't the chaotic evil character run a clergy of Lamashtu, and why can't a lawful evil character always be out for himself?
Your LG rogue however, would not kill or main or betray anyone and everyone to do so. He might be out for himself, but he wont do anything and everything to get what he wants.
When I say selfish, I mean never put anything ahead of themselves and what they want. Nothing is more important them them, If they need to kill a thousand people to cover up a lie and keep what they have, eh not an issue. If they need to betray a "friend" they have known for 10 years to complete a goal..eh not an issue , no remorse, no backing out, they just gut em.
If he wishes to buy a round of drinks for a bar, he will. But if he needs to or hell just feels like killing the man he just happily brought a drink for, he wont feel a damned bit sad about it. As that man's happiness and well being did not effect him one bit.
Your LG rogue however, would not kill or main or betray anyone and everyone to do so. He might be out for himself, but he wont do anything and everything to get what he wants.
When I say selfish, I mean never put anything ahead of themselves and what they want. Nothing is more important them them, If they need to kill a thousand people to cover up a lie and keep what they have, eh not an issue. If they need to betray a "friend" they have known for 10 years to complete a goal..eh not an issue , no remorse, no backing out, they just gut em.
If he wishes to buy a round of drinks for a bar, he will. But if he needs to or hell just feels like killing the man he just happily brought a drink for, he wont feel a damned bit sad about it. As that man's happiness and well being did not effect him one bit.
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
Nothing in there says they must be utterly selfish, don't have real friends, or kill just anyone at the drop of a hat. Yeah, they do "what greed, hatred, and a lust for destruction" drive them to do, but when your friends are adventurers, you know that being nice to [/i] those people[/i] will enable you to murder, pillage, and steal a whole lot more than you'd otherwise be able to. Not to mention that trying to kill them is gonna be much harder and more dangerous to yourself than going with them to kill other things.
Sure, they may not be the nicest people around, but they can be loyal to their friends nonetheless, because being so does advance their goals a hell of a lot more than just stabbing those people. And again, it doesn't say anywhere in the CE description that they can't have friends. They'd likely just express friendship in a really weird way, and yeah, if your goody-two-shoes paladin tries to "redeem" them or something, expect to fall out of the friends category and into the "likely to be stabbed" zone real quick.
Your LG rogue however, would not kill or main or betray anyone and everyone to do so. He might be out for himself, but he wont do anything and everything to get what he wants.
When I say selfish, I mean never put anything ahead of themselves and what they want. Nothing is more important them them, If they need to kill a thousand people to cover up a lie and keep what they have, eh not an issue. If they need to betray a "friend" they have known for 10 years to complete a goal..eh not an issue , no remorse, no backing out, they just gut em.
If he wishes to buy a round of drinks for a bar, he will. But if he needs to or hell just feels like killing the man he just happily brought a drink for, he wont feel a damned bit sad about it. As that man's happiness and well being did not effect him one bit.
I think this gives some leeway (from the core rulebook): "Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient." So, ignoring L/C for a moment, according to the book the reason for the evil aspect of your alignment is that you kill out of convenience, without hesitation or remorse.
The down-side of the chaotic alignment is most applicable to CE, though it could apply to CG or CN, as well: "On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary
actions, and irresponsibility."
However, the CE description makes it apparent that CE is not really an appropriate alignment for players to choose, unless they want the group to eventually break apart. So, if we assume that CE is going to work in a game, it is better to ignore the description of CE, and instead rely upon the description of evil and the description of chaotic, combined. There is a way to combine the two in a way that will work in a party.
Specifically, the evil aspect should be a willingness to kill without pity or remorse. The chaotic aspect should be that you get spitting angry when the cops tell you what to do, or somebody insults you. You don't stand watch very effectively because you are irresponsible, and probably care relatively little about your own life, and (since you are the best of the CE beings out there to make you able to get along in a group) are just as irresponsible with the lives of your friends. I think such a character could work. Your companions would have to compensate for your irresponsibility and help keep you out of trouble. You're the guy that has to be pulled away from a fight with effort (rather than the guy that you just have to pretend to pull away from the fight to stop it). Your companions would have to watch you in the bar, and stand between you and those they know will piss you off. As long as everyone works at it, it should work.
That said, not every player will want to have to babysit you. I would ask permission from the rest of the group before bringing in such a character. NE would be quite a bit easier to manage because you at least will at least be responsible, and abide by party rules to some extent.
I agree with those who say alignment does not prohibit you from having friends. However, I think a CE being is much more likely to get angry and kill friends. So your companions would have to be comfortable with the fact that they need to try to stay on your good side. Not everyone will be comfortable with that, but with a little DM support (no PC on PC murder), the players (not necessarily the characters) will be comfortable that you will not murder them in a fit of anger. That's good enough.
+1 to that.
i think you are right that the chaotic evil alignment description doesn't seem to fit if you just look at them as separate, i could not agree with you more on this.
So ignore the book and just say it's CE...got ya.
its not so much ignore the book as it is ignore one part and pay closer attention to another.
That is ignoring it, you ignored the description of how CE acts so you could say it acts differently then what the book does. You have chosen to ignore how the game says it works then try and say "oh but I am still CE, I just had to ignore the rules to be that but still see my sheet says CE"
I don't mind the debate,its fun. But once you start ignoring the rule book you just lost all grounds in any debate and marked your "CE" as a house ruled version not supported by any published source.
You can't debate when you ignore the source everyone else is using and use something you made up in it's place.
|
So ignore the book and just say it's CE...got ya.
You're willfully disregarding the fact that while it doesn't specifically say CE can't adventure and have fun and have friends and like small kittens, nothing in the text says they can't. It may be very hard for them to relate to other people, but I'm pretty sure they can find someone they agree with.
And just because you are CE doesn't mean you have a mental problem, either. Your heart may be in the right place but your decisions are inherently evil. For example, Jett from Avatar. He's a freedom fighter trying to drive the Fire Army from his lands...but he's willing to dupe his allies and destroy a town to accomplish it. That's pretty much CE...and he DOES have friends.
i understand what you are saying and see your point.
|
|
That is ignoring it, you ignored the description of how CE acts so you could say it acts differently then what the book does. You have chosen to ignore how the game says it works then try and say "oh but I am still CE, I just had to ignore the rules to be that but still see my sheet says CE"
I don't mind the debate,its fun. But once you start ignoring the rule book you just lost all grounds in any debate and marked your "CE" as a house ruled version not supported by any published source.
You can't debate when you ignore the source everyone else is using and use something you made up in it's place.
Except, like, you're one of the few people that have explicitly stated that CE characters cannot have friends, or huggy-huggy emotions at all.
The wonderful thing about that is, since it isn't specifically stated whether an evil character can/not have semi-normal relations with people they like, you can houserule THAT, at least.
you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.
you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.
Sorry, I think Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are dead and I don't think Skip Williams posts here.
|
|
you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.Sorry, I think Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are dead and I don't think Skip Williams posts here.
No, he's talking about Erik Mona or James Jacobs, as they altered the descriptions of alignment from the 3.0 and 3.5 versions of the rulebooks.
yup, that's what i meant.
Except, like, you're one of the few people that have explicitly stated that CE characters cannot have friends, or huggy-huggy emotions at all.
By what is written in the book, no. Does it say it out right in those words , no. Could you see anyone living long term with someone of CE description as in the book and never being in danger?
The lines
"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." and "Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
coupled with the lines
"He is Vicious,Arbitrarily violent and unpredictably" and "Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him." and "Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend"
Make it clear that a CE person cares little for anyone but themselves and would have no issue betraying or killing a "good friend" if they needed to.
Kinda like giving the violent drunk guy the gun, he may never use it, or he may shoot you all for taking his chips. Either way he is unlikely to care as long as it does not effect him.
you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.
that would indeed be interesting to hear.
No, he's talking about Erik Mona or James Jacobs, as they altered the descriptions of alignment from the 3.0 and 3.5 versions of the rulebooks.you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.Sorry, I think Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are dead and I don't think Skip Williams posts here.
Not that I see.
|
|
Except, like, you're one of the few people that have explicitly stated that CE characters cannot have friends, or huggy-huggy emotions at all.
By what is written in the book, no. Does it say it out right in those words , no. Could you see anyone living long term with someone of CE description as in the book and never being in danger?
The lines
"Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." and "Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it."
coupled with the lines
"He is Vicious,Arbitrarily violent and unpredictably" and "Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him." and "Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend"Make it clear that a CE person cares little for anyone but themselves and would have no issue betraying or killing a "good friend" if they needed to.
Kinda like giving the violent drunk guy the gun, he may never use it, or he may shoot you all for taking his chips. Either way he is unlikely to care as long as it does not effect him.
Heh, my group had a CE Rogue who backstabbed people who were getting in our way to save Korvosa, whether they were good guys or bad guys. His reasoning for adventuring with us was: "What fun is causing chaos when someone's beaten you to it?"
He violently opposed the BBEG of that AP because all of his stuff (and his favorite whore) were in the city, and were burned/killed by disease within the first couple of adventures. He was out for blood, and since we were basically motivated by the same thing, he allied with us, naturally.
The fact that the party's sorcerer was hot and blew stuff up was a bonus. I think it was love (or lust) at first sight.
That is ignoring it, you ignored the description of how CE acts so you could say it acts differently then what the book does. You have chosen to ignore how the game says it works then try and say "oh but I am still CE, I just had to ignore the rules to be that but still see my sheet says CE"
I don't mind the debate,its fun. But once you start ignoring the rule book you just lost all grounds in any debate and marked your "CE" as a house ruled version not supported by any published source.
You can't debate when you ignore the source everyone else is using and use something you made up in it's place.
No. I favored the language of the description of chaos and evil over a description of a normal CE creature. I think the example I gave should be easily categorized as CE. What alignment would you assign to a person who kills people if it is convenient, but not people who he likes; who is irresponsible and gets angry when a person with authority suggests he do something because it is the law; who will kill innocent people who piss him off unless his friends are there to pull him off? There has to be an alignment since all sapient beings have them. So is the alignment NE? Well, he is doing things that are actually bad for himself, since he does things that can cause him harm and cost him resources; he's irresponsible and happy to flaunt authority rather than try to work within the system. Is he LE? Hell no. What part of killing innocent people who piss him off screams something other than evil?
You are suggesting that a character concept that does not follow, word-for-word, a description in the core rulebook cannot be that alignment. That's just silly. I dare you to categorize the character I described in the previous paragraph. (Note: the character has friends.)
|
|
Not that I see.No, he's talking about Erik Mona or James Jacobs, as they altered the descriptions of alignment from the 3.0 and 3.5 versions of the rulebooks.you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.Sorry, I think Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are dead and I don't think Skip Williams posts here.
Check your eyesight and look again.
/thread
That's a good one. :)
Check your eyesight and look again.Not that I see.No, he's talking about Erik Mona or James Jacobs, as they altered the descriptions of alignment from the 3.0 and 3.5 versions of the rulebooks.you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.Sorry, I think Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are dead and I don't think Skip Williams posts here.
Perhaps you would care to point out the significant differences that apparently exist.
|
|
Perhaps you would care to point out the significant differences that apparently exist.Check your eyesight and look again.Not that I see.No, he's talking about Erik Mona or James Jacobs, as they altered the descriptions of alignment from the 3.0 and 3.5 versions of the rulebooks.you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.Sorry, I think Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson are dead and I don't think Skip Williams posts here.
I'm sorry, you don't have 3.0/3.5 rulebooks and the Pathfinder rulebook in front of you?
|
Every AL when you strip it down has a base, that is what the CE one amounts to.
Where is this list of bases that you speak of? Is there some particular chart or is this just the way you've always played alignment? The way everyone keeps talking, it sounds like there's an alignment bible that some of us haven't read while others flat-out don't believe exists.
EDIT: I have seen a few posts from the PRD, including one that's been chopped up a little and interpreted, so I'll assume that is the chart that's being used as the foundation/base that's been mentioned. Question answered.
Some people in this thread need to calm down and chill out.
I'm sorry, you don't have 3.0/3.5 rulebooks and the Pathfinder rulebook in front of you?
You can either point out the significant differences or I can copy and paste from the D&D and PF srds and prove you wrong.
|
|
You can either point out the significant differences or I can copy and paste from the D&D and PF srds and prove you wrong.
I'm sorry, you don't have 3.0/3.5 rulebooks and the Pathfinder rulebook in front of you?
See above.
There's been a really nasty undercurrent in this thread since the first page. I know people feel very strongly that their interpretations are correct, so much so that they've kept arguing at points after the people they were arguing with said "let's agree to disagree." Every player is going to interpret the alignment text their own way and unless their DM rules by popular consensus, opinions here should be given politely, debated respectfully, and used constructively. It was four pages ago, but I think the original question was about HOW to make a chaotic evil player work within a group. Whether it's even possible is probably worth a little debate, but it stops being constructive if people break into factions and just argue IF instead of HOW.
|
|
you know i would love to have one of the developers chime in on this thread just to get their opinion on it.that would indeed be interesting to hear.
I think they stay far, far away from alignment threads. I mean, we all start out with the best of intentions but then it starts getting twisted until everything we say has the taint of corruption. Alignment threads are like Dark Side caves, I think. There's no going into one without being sucked into a battle between good and evil that is ultimately just a battle with ourself.
Maybe I should have spoilered that last comment. It's possible some people haven't seen that movie yet.
i think it is safe to say that the rules written about how each alignment might be played is mostly a suggestion and not a carved in stone fact that must be adhered to at all times.
I think it's safe to say folks will keep seeing them different ways and reading the same words and still seeing them different . Which is ok as well.
And TOZ is correct...In his own mind anyhow :)
lol yeah i can agree with that.
Maybe Paizo should further develop the alignment system. Like, put two alignment slots.
One would be the Ideal your character is after (So it basically never changes until the character has big issues or reorients)
The other one would be the "True" alignment, the one your action dictates. The one that a Smite X (or relevant ability) will have effect on. Maybe a little sidebar with actions that grants greater and lesser + and - to the bar (Pretty much like in NeverWinterNights). Oh, and a random lists of Social/mental ticks that develop the more you are zealous about your alignment (Same goes for Good and Lawful, mind you)
I think it would be a really cool add-on for the roleplay aspects of the game.
You know ... I'm *real* partial to TriOmega's last chart up-thread a bit.
Seriously, w/out complicating things it nails it down. It also handles things fine and is still a 4-point reference, more or less. (Neutral being dead set in the middle.)
So, to get "on topic" I'll recommend that *anyone* attempting to play CE in a party should use TriOmega's chart as the reference.
So CE will become and be played like a "Prick, who doesn't play by the rules."
I mean, hell, with that description, it could just be Wolverine of X-Men fame that we're letting into the game. Who *doesn't* want to play on Wolverine's team anyway?
;-)
Edit: just a note on a few D&D-based characters from the literature that really did have friends just fine and were CE near as I can tell.
Raistlin - yeah, we *should* all know this guy. crazy powerful, and really selfish. Had friends for a long time, they helped him, he protected them, but ultimately he traded them all in for power (but not his brother - interestingly enough). He was power mad - he used people - and yet he had real, genuine feelings for the people around him. {some would argue this impossible given the description of CE's and their behavior as pure socio-paths}. Rather than achieve his ultimate power and condemn his brother, Raistlin chose to sacrifice himself and spare his brother. How the HELL do you justify the written CE description in his case?
Tithian - one of the lead characters from the Darksun Prism Pentad novels. He's easily one of the most manipulative, and power hungry/power grabbing characters I've *ever* come across. His best friend, his ONLY friend was Aegistus. Right up to the moment of killing Aegistus, and even after - Tithian really *loved* him as much as he was capable of such a thing anyway. He regretted murdering his friend, but Aegistus also didn't give him much of a choice. Tithian constantly tried to get him to join with him, but Aegistus would not and refused. The fact that HIS FRIEND never took his side was a constant reminder of pain and regret for Tithian, however. Again - by the description, how *could* he possibly have had a "friend" since he's, you know - a PRESCRIBED sociopath?
Again - I'll say that applying abnormally stringent expectations on the CE alignment really does cut off RP potential. You *can't* play Wolverine.
He's a prick, and he doesn't play by the rules ... but go ahead and try to kill Cyclops (X-man he most dislikes of all given the whole Jean Grey rivalry), and see what he'll do to you. He's a jerk, but he's WOLVERINE'S jerk! Don't you dare mess with him ... or else!!!
CE *is* perfectly playable ... it just requires work at the table from ALL parties to understand it and balance it.
..great now are we claiming everyone is CE for no particular reason in order to try and make a point?
I dont think CE people have to be sociopaths or without loyalty. Those they are not loyal to will die without a second thought though. <---That does not mean they are stupid enough to kill you in broad daylight with people watching, but it might be a good idea to avoid any alleys.
The NE may or may not kill you depending on the emotional vs logical factor. I actually worry about these guys the most. At least you might know what to expect from the other two.
The LE guy probably wont kill you unless he has too. That does not make him any less evil. His methods are just more ordered.
|
|
I think it's safe to say folks will keep seeing them different ways and reading the same words and still seeing them different . Which is ok as well.
And TOZ is correct...In his own mind anyhow :)
Definitely. I think it's healthier that way and probably fosters more creativity. It's only when people see things differently in the same gaming group that there's potentially a problem, and even that can be solved by everyone giving each other and their interpretations some space.
As rules go, alignment is in this weird category that's part mechanics and part fluff. Some of it is just about fostering roleplay and some can make you lose all your class abilities.
I have only read the first three DL books but, Raistlin was gonna allow his brother to die in the first few books{more then once} and he just didn't care. And hate to tell ya but officially Tithian of Mericles was LN who became LE he was not and never has been CE
And on another note: Wolverine is not CE, sabertooth would fall into that rang however.
Edit: Titians stats can be found on page 22 of the veiled alliance source book They are
Tithian
Human Male Templar
17th-Level
Lawful Neutral
Str 9 Dex 14 Con 13 Int 18 Wis 15 Cha 16
Definitely. I think it's healthier that way and probably fosters more creativity. It's only when people see things differently in the same gaming group that there's potentially a problem, and even that can be solved by everyone giving each other and their interpretations some space.
I agree, I even enjoy these little debates as long as most folks stay kinda civil. Its interesting to see how others see things in way you simply do not. As much grief as they bring I find AL's to be wonderful role playing tools.
|
|
I have only read the first three DL books but, Raistlin was gonna allow his brother to die in the first few books{more then once} and he just didn't care. And hate to tell ya but officially Tithian of Mericles was LN who became LE he was not and never has been CE
And on another note: Wolverine is not CE, sabertooth would fall into that rang however.
I think Wolverine generally isn't, but it depends on the time in his chronology and the specific portrayal of him.
I think Wolverine generally isn't, but it depends on the time in his chronology and the specific portrayal of him.
When he was the mindless wild man or one of the horsemen, yep. But I would peg him as CG in his normal state of mind.
|
I think it's safe to say folks will keep seeing them different ways and reading the same words and still seeing them different . Which is ok as well.
And TOZ is correct...In his own mind anyhow :)
Hey, I did say upthread (maybe it was in the baby killing thread) that the only view that matters is the DMs and that the players can agree to play by his interpretation. As long as everyone at the table is on the same page, it doesn't matter what interpretation of alignment you use.
You know ... I'm *real* partial to TriOmega's last chart up-thread a bit.
Seriously, w/out complicating things it nails it down. It also handles things fine and is still a 4-point reference, more or less. (Neutral being dead set in the middle.)
So, to get "on topic" I'll recommend that *anyone* attempting to play CE in a party should use TriOmega's chart as the reference.
So CE will become and be played like a "Prick, who doesn't play by the rules."
I mean, hell, with that description, it could just be Wolverine of X-Men fame that we're letting into the game. Who *doesn't* want to play on Wolverine's team anyway?
;-)
Edit: just a note on a few D&D-based characters from the literature that really did have friends just fine and were CE near as I can tell.
Raistlin - yeah, we *should* all know this guy. crazy powerful, and really selfish. Had friends for a long time, they helped him, he protected them, but ultimately he traded them all in for power (but not his brother - interestingly enough). He was power mad - he used people - and yet he had real, genuine feelings for the people around him. {some would argue this impossible given the description of CE's and their behavior as pure socio-paths}. Rather than achieve his ultimate power and condemn his brother, Raistlin chose to sacrifice himself and spare his brother. How the HELL do you justify the written CE description in his case?
Tithian - one of the lead characters from the Darksun Prism Pentad novels. He's easily one of the most manipulative, and power hungry/power grabbing characters I've *ever* come across. His best friend, his ONLY friend was Aegistus. Right up to the moment of killing Aegistus, and even after - Tithian really *loved* him as much as he was capable of such a thing anyway. He regretted murdering his friend, but Aegistus also didn't give him much of a choice. Tithian constantly tried to get him to join with him, but Aegistus would not and refused. The fact that HIS FRIEND never took his side was a constant...
I thought the chart was a joke and was referring to people who play by the RAW and those who don't, which has nothing to do with whether they are jerks or are cool. As a guide for play, I think it is a step in the wrong direction because it is imprecise. I don't want my good vs. evil battles to have a good guy be a really nice serial killer, who is always careful to ensure his victims are comfortable and don't know what is coming, and a bad guy who protects the innocent no matter what, but is a jerk.
A chart that makes Wolverine CE is just not worthy of being used in play.
Hey, I did say upthread (maybe it was in the baby killing thread) that the only view that matters is the DMs and that the players can agree to play by his interpretation. As long as everyone at the table is on the same page, it doesn't matter what interpretation of alignment you use.I think it's safe to say folks will keep seeing them different ways and reading the same words and still seeing them different . Which is ok as well.
And TOZ is correct...In his own mind anyhow :)
You can be literally on the same page, e.g., the page describing an alignment in the core rules, and still disagree. Using a system that is even less precise will result in even greater disagreement. An ideal alignment system is a *definition* of a class of motivations for performing actions. However, the core rulebook uses mostly implications for alignments, rather than definitions, which sometimes makes it worse. So I think a DM should be a little more disciplined than "we're playing by my rules" when the rules are ambiguous. Playing by RAW is understandable, but in my experience, that will require some interpretation by the DM, much like judges often disagree on the interpretation of a law.
With precision comes some great advantages. If you know all you have to do is be willing to protect the lives of any creature you know to be innocent, as long as you have the resources, you can choose a character concept that stretches the boundaries of what all of us agree is good, or one that bowls right down the middle as a "traditional" good person. It's more fun, enables great freedom in character concept (since, let's face it, some players self-censor their characters to ensure they have a particular alignment) and results in less confusion/disagreement/argument; so I believe that it is better. I'm not saying I expect anyone to change their gaming habits at their own table, just as I wouldn't say that someone has to use logic in their own house. You wanna be illogical? Your house.
I think the OP question about how to play a CE character is precisely on point. There are several people who argue it is impossible to play a CE character in a party that is going to last. That thinking comes from a reading of the CE section of the core rulebook, which provides suggestions about how to play a CE creature. However, you can easily come up with a character concept that is CE because no other alignment is applicable, and that would work in a party. The *characters* might think the party is doomed to break apart or even that they are at risk of a backstabbing, but the *players* know that isn't so. So it is a comfortable gaming experience.
Being on the same page did not help us here. However, if you are precise in your definition of CE, it is not difficult to see that a CE character can be a viable concept and, with a little DM love that requires everyone roll with it to ensure there is no inter-party deaths and asks the other players to ensure that the CE dude doesn't do something so heinous that they would have no plausible reason to continue adventuring together, it works. (Ignoring chaotic for a moment) if you say that to be evil, you must be willing to kill for fun at least some of the time, you can still have friends. It doesn't limit an evil character to being friendless. To be chaotic perhaps you have to act against your interests when you are emotional. For CE, that means you do evil things (i.e., kill innocents) when you get angry. It may be a slightly watered-down version of CE, but it really doesn't fit any other alignment; so give the player a break. Since this is a team effort, your companions can be aware of your emotional issues and keep you from killing. Heck, you don't even have to act to be the bad cop! On top of the definitions, you can add character-specific motivations. You can have friends, maybe you love rats (but still snap their little necks if they misbehave), and perhaps you cry when watching plays about true love. Another CE creature might kill crybabies. CE doesn't get along, after all.
I personally don't allow CE characters in my games, but I would if everyone agreed to babysit. Plus, CE is the most difficult alignment to integrate into a party. If precision in your definition of alignment helps cross that minefield, imagine how easy it is to deal with the other alignments.